Kate Raworthhttp://www.newstatesman.com/writers/kate_raworth
enhttp://www.newstatesman.com/2008/07/drunk-driving-climate-2050
<div class="field field-name-field-subheadline field-type-text-long field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Oxfam&#039;s Kate Raworth gives her take on the achievements of the G8 summit and compares the outcome to</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"> <p>"After today's G8 summit we agreed to set the aim for a reduction of the entire global emissions of gases to 50 per cent by 2050, as a target to be taken up by the entire world". </p>
<p>This was Japan's Prime Minister Fukuda speaking on behalf of the G8 leaders last Tuesday. What an extraordinary situation: eight people from eight countries setting policy with such huge implications for the whole world. But hey, they said they would halve global emissions – that's got to have been a good thing, right? </p>
<p>Wrong. </p>
<p>First, it's not even a policy. Without stating a base year to make cuts against, it is meaningless. Without setting a mid-term target for 2020, it is un-ambitious. And without a commitment that rich countries will take on the biggest share of cuts, it is unjust. South Africa's environment minister rightly dismissed it as 'an empty slogan without substance'. </p>
<p>The world's climate scientists are clear: we need global greenhouse gas emission cuts of at least 80% against 1990 levels by 2050 in order to stay safely below 2 degrees warming. By "safely" they mean we would still have up to a one-in-three chance of overshooting into dangerous climate change. But this is the safest target anywhere close to being on the table for discussion. </p>
<p>In 1990, global greenhouse gas emmissions were 36 Gigatonnes of CO2e. They're 47 Gt today and rising. By 2050, therefore, they must be just 7 Gt for "safety". Yes, it is hugely ambitious. But the alternative is to choose an irreversible increase in floods, droughts, hurricanes and sea-level rise, which would cause chronic food shortages, water scarcity, homelessness, and health crises for well over one billion of the world's poorest people for generations to come. </p>
<p>So what is the G8 actually proposing? </p>
<p>If they mean that we should halve global emissions by 2050, measured against 1990 levels – the most generous reading we could give to their words – then we would end up with 18 Gt of greenhouse gases in 2050. That's more than double the safe limit. </p>
<p>Or, if what they actually mean – and it's only too possible – is that we halve emissions by 2050, but only starting from now, then that will put us more than three times over the safe limit, at 23 Gt. </p>
<p>This is equivalent to a serious, jailable offence of intentionally drunk driving – and with the rest of the world forced to ride in the back seat. In any other situation, the police would take away their car keys. </p>
<p><em>Kate Raworth is Oxfam's senior researcher on climate change</em></p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:10:37 +0000Kate Raworth161206 at http://www.newstatesman.com